I found a very interesting essay in the New York Times, called “The End of Authorship” by John Updike, and then realized that it was being discussed on the Future of the Book.
While Ben Vershbow was critical of the essay because he thought Updike is a “nostaligic elitist”, I thought I’d defend the essay’s sentiment, and not it’s superficial wrapping. Here is my comment:
I really enjoyed Updike’s essay. I don’t think he is either denying what is happening to the book (the “book” as we know it) and I do not think he is on a crusade to try and save the book. I think he is simply acknowledging the changes to the book and I think he has a honest concern of what might lost in the transition of moving ideas to the web, especially from someone who’s entire life has revolved around books.
I don’t think he is trying to hold back what appears to be progress the way we share ideas. The benefits of the web are enormous! and it’s hard to imagine ever trying to revert it…
But, like Updike, who doesn’t acknowledge what is gained, I think it’s important to also acknowledge what might be lost. I often say that I read the news, facts and interesting ideas on the web all day and I am rarely satisfied! Thats my life. That is what I do. I read stuff on the web. Usually interesting stuff. But when I pick up one book, my life changes. Almost every time! When I finish a (good) book it almost always has a profound effect of me. I think about the ideas in the book a lot! And the thoughts never fade. Books change the way I think. The internet fills me up with facts.
In the web I can read about the Ottoman Empire, I find out who acted in what movie, and I can find out the details on the collapse of the Argentinean economy in seconds, and now I often say I have a hard time imagining not having the internet to answer many of my questions. I joke: Before the internet, what did people do when someone said an ambiguous or incorrect statement? Unless you bothered going to the library every time someone said a strange “fact”, how would you know if it’s true? Did you just accept it? Who bothered doing “research”? That world now seems distant to me.
But I wonder, as it appears Updike does, wether that profound moment you have after reading book is lost. Will it be replaced with technology? maybe… until then..I think it’s fair to lament what might be lost.
Capitalizing Our Troubles…
Ben Vershbow concluded The Great John Updike Web Publishing Debate in an essay called The Least Interesting Conversation in the World Continues. He thought (as I thought) that The New York Times has extended an unhelpful conversation about web……
one thing i at least want to be careful about is updike’s treatment of the “printed, bound, paid-for” book as the critical high-point in literature. i wonder if (and personally also assert that) he is most interested in printed literature as an essentially economic object, rather than as an object of knowledge, learning, experience–something to regard with care or nostalgia. he seems mostly to be peeved about what kelly predicted as the “marxist” outcome of e-literature. all the other “go forth, defend thyself” trappings, edges of books and whatnot, really sound like echoes of arguments for personal property. not that i’ll here go into that being a good or bad thing, but just that updike really isn’t talking about literature so much as he is money…his money.
I have been amazed by the overwhelmingly negative response to John Updike’s essay. I think Updike is an easy target because his age and success represents the old establishment.
Can Updike say anything about the future of books without being completely dismissed because of what he respresents?
frankly, i have very little idea of what updike represents, and have read almost none of his work. he makes it into a couple anthologies that undergraduates read, so i know his name. i respond to his article based only on what he says in his article. i don’t know if that is “fair” or not. i also don’t know anything about any old or new establishment in literature.
the only time “age” makes someone an “easy target” is when one considers running down the said aged with one’s vehicle, which–so far–i have not seen anyone suggest for updike. but i’m not necessarily the most well-informed when it comes to the politics of the publishing world… instead of considering updike as a literary superhero, defending mythical elements of the written universe, i would think it much more useful to look at each bit of writing that he does, individually, and try to determine if it makes any sense. when updike suggests in his article that the whole, un-snipped work is enough to carry the author’s message, he seems to be saying that such analysis is ok with him.
Oh, I am sure no one missed the crank when it disapeared from the car.
I’ve never been much of literature romantic or much of a materialist, but I think there is something different between books being replaced and the local arcade with outdated graphics.
I think what makes this argument interesting is that we live in a period of transition. We know the book (as we know it) is being replaced, but we yet do not know by what. The new and fancy technology that will allow us to carry our “books” in our back pockets is not here yet. So my defense for Updike is provisional.
I found an interesting debate going on about my post on the following website:
The Horseless Library: Digital Library Discussions
[...] Jeff Young, from the The Chronicle of Higher Education, wrote a piece titled Book 2.0: Scholars turn monographs into digital conversations, where he discusses a bit about the work going on at the Institute of Future of the Book . Sadly, it’s a paid service, and the article is not public, but a quote from my post Updike and the Future of the Book was mentioned in the last paragraph of the article. On the Institute for the Future of the Book’s blog, Mr. Vershbow responded to Mr. Updike’s much-quoted speech. [...]